What's everyone currently reading?
I just started reading a book now available in English for the first time since it was published in German over two centuries ago: "Restoration of Political Science, Or Theory of The Natural Social State Against the Fiction of an Artificial Civil State, Vol. 1", by Karl Ludwig von Haller.
Exciting to me, but I'm sure it would bore most people. 😄
The Machiavellian Moment by JGA Pocock
It seems to be a comparison of Florentine political theory (not just Machiavelli) with American political practice
I've started Th Prince, speaking of #Machiavelli.
And #Ikigai.
Re reading Gramsci's Prison Notebooks, but really Looking forward to a
break to catch up on some physics.
Currently in the middle of Crime and Punishment by Fiodor Dostoyevsky , heavy but genius
Previously read Good Omens by Tarry Pretchet and Niel Geyman , pure gem !
Got a quick summary of what the book is about? Sounds interesting
Hm, I'm not a fan of divinely-ordained natural order and obedience to authorities. How does Haller feel about individual liberties and voluntary association?
(I responded to you yesterday but I just now saw that it didn't go through, apparently. My Internet connection went offline when I wrote it, but even still, I thought Amethyst would save it as a draft 😕)
I think Haller would say that individual liberties and voluntary association were previously and would be better protected under a natural, private law society than under the modern democratic states we live under today as a result of the Enlightenment, so-called.
Here is an excerpt from a speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (from which I first learned about Haller) that I think gives an excellent summary of Haller's views:
"To begin with, it is noted that there exists no record whatsoever that anything resembling a contract as imagined by social contract theorists has ever been concluded anywhere. And Haller immediately cuts to the heart of the matter as to why this is so and why any such contract is inconceivable. In the state of nature, he writes (p. 322), everyone, for his protection and security, could rely on his own powers and means of self-defense or he could choose someone more powerful than himself, and equipped with more or better means of protection, and attach himself at mutually agreed upon terms to such a person as his vassal or servant; and he could terminate and leave any such association and return to defensive self-sufficiency or attach himself to another presumably better protector. Why, then, Haller wonders, would anyone consider it an improvement, if he could no longer choose his own protector and mode of protection but such a decision were made instead by others, i.e. “the people?” How is that supposed to be freedom?!"
Hoppe's whole speech is good, in my opinion, but here's another excerpt that gives a flavor of what Haller was describing:
"A prince’s direct rule extends only to his own property, just as in the case of every other person and his property, and as we will see shortly, it is only in regard to this “self-administration” of one’s own property that there exists somewhat of a difference between a prince and everyone else. In any case, as a private law subject, a prince does not rule over other people and their property, however, (p. 479) – except insofar as these have voluntarily attached themselves to the prince and entered into some sort of social relationship with him to better satisfy this need or that. Hence, in distinct contrast to the modern state, a prince may not unilaterally pass legislative decrees or impose taxes on other people and their property (p. 450, Fn. 8). Rather, whatever dependencies or servitudes there may exist vis-à-vis a prince they vary from one dependent to another, and in any case they are all voluntarily accepted and may be dissolved once they are no longer deemed mutually beneficial. – And Haller adds some illuminating terminological observations to further clarify this status of a prince as a mere private law subject (see p. 480, Fn. 14): The most appropriate way to refer to the status of a prince, king, etc., then, is to identify him simply as the head of a particular household, such as the head of the house of Bourbon, or the house of Habsburg, Hohenzollern or Wittelsbach, etc., for instance. Less appropriate, and already slightly misleading is it to refer to them instead as the king of France, and the kings of Austria, Prussia or Bavaria, because this insinuates, falsely, that they are something like the owners of all of France, Austria, etc.. And entirely misguided is it to call them the government of France, Austria, Prussia and Bavaria, as if they were merely the employees of the French, Austrian, Prussian or Bavarian population."
I want to know more about this... I've learned the hard way that there is no such thing as "The Law"... It's just an abstraction to get you to go along, usually with bad actions on the part of the party leveraging this ridiculous concept against you. The law is just an excuse to gain advantage over someone else... The dark side of power. Wen power over one's own self? This is the correct exercise of power. So Private Membership Associations (PMAs) seem to be a step in this direction, but these still kowtow to statutory law by perverting inalienable rights of the individual into actions that can only be exercised and defended in court if done by permission of a group aka association. It's almost as if the freedom to freely associate with anyone has been turned into a "group" activity for the purpose of filtering all the other inalienable rights through this "association" funnel. They'll tell you, "Oh your rights aren't absolute" as a pretense to alienate you from your rights unless you get a "representative" to enforce/defend your rights. It's almost as if no one knows what is right or wrong any more... Stealing is rampant, because that's the example that people in government set for others to follow... Killing is monopolized because that is the example that people in the government set for others to see and fear thus chilling all kinds of free exercise of rights... Slavery is tolerated because that's the example that people in government set for others to follow by enslaving people every single day... Destroying is pervasive because that is the example that people in government set for others to follow... The list goes on. I like this GaaS idea... Must ruminate now.
I'll share some of my highlights from Haller's book that might address your comments too:
He speaks of "a universal law, a common rule, to direct the use of this liberty ...But what, then, is the object or content of this law? It is what the voice of nature, or the word of God, inner sentiment, and the belief and judgment of all men continue to teach us. It is summed up in two words: Avoid evil, do good. Harm nobody, but make yourself useful wherever you can; don’t invade the goods, possessions, and rights of others; but increase them according to your ability. The first of these commandments is called the law of justice; the second, the law of love or benevolence" (pp. 522, 525).
"perfect liberty, which consists in not being subject to coercion by the will of others, and that comprises the essential characteristic of every sovereign prince" (p. 355).
"No man has the right to encroach upon what belongs to another, deprive him of his life or fortune; use violence to hamper the exercise of his free will, or interfere with innocent and morally neutral action. Other than those duties incumbent upon all men, he cannot require any more from another than what is authorized by the nature of the relation or contract, whether formal or tacit, that exists between them" (p. 430).
"the original founders of the State had no right to subject their posterity to the yoke of perpetual dependence" (p. 171).
On "Government-as-a-Service" I'm sure I heard or read that term somewhere, but don't recall where. I read a book by Spencer Heath called 
that advocated this idea, although I don't believe it used that term. One quote from it states that the author foresaw "the emergence of a general public-services industry producing and administering public community services of all kinds voluntarily and contractually, for-profit, without recourse to taxation" (p. 15)
And again: "Based on his observations of our incomplete yet rapidly evolving society, Heath predicted that we would outgrow government as we know it in favor of the voluntary, contractual provision of all public services in the foreseeable future. With the demise of taxation, he foresaw world peace..." (p. 16).
One more: "We have the golden rule, which is commanded of us, that we should love one another by serving one another and doing it impersonally—in ways that take in everybody. And we have the iron rule, which puts some men in authority over others. It makes those others slaves to some degree through chattel slavery, tax slavery, tribute slavery, regulation, or whatever kinds of slavery are imposed by external authority upon the would-be free spirits of men" (p. 43).
The Free Private Cities project is actively working to establish places to live around the world along these lines, independent of governments, where residents pay for their protection services contractually and voluntarily.
Thank you for sharing. Next book in my bloated audiobook library... I wish to trade in corruptible iron for the incorruptible gold.
I like Hoppe's disparagement of the circular reasoning of the popular mind's resort to "The People". Who are you people? 🤣
One punch man. He can solve any problem with a punch. An enemy?, punch. Cancer? Punch. World hunger? Punch. Fiat monies? Punch. Loneliness? Punch
But he feels depressed from a lack of challenge so he chooses not to do that.
I like browsing through the open source software repositories to see what's out there... GitHub has tons of vaporware and non-starter empty templates, but various Linux distros have great libraries. Of interest to me are the disaster emergency response apps/servers/communications systems. These seem like a good dividing line between private/public. Like a harsh ideological dividing line... every government interaction is an emergency! Why is this "benefit" being provided to you? Were you not able to do this own your own or with others that you freely associate with? Do you even need this? Of course governments love disasters as wedge issues, but they eventually tire of this, preferring to outsource even disaster response to commercial and non-commercial private entities... This is the way. Can we walk in it? This would mean re-evaluating the basic and most fundamental things we just take for granted... things like, why do we even live in houses that can burn down. Modern "society" has been likened to a house of cards, but how did it get that way? We love nostalgic marathons of "Little House on the Prairie" or "The Wilderness Family" but no one wants to work for that kind of innerdependence... Heck, even the fine townsfolk of Walnut Grove blew up their entire village in the final season to keep it out of the hands of the railroad corporations. No one thinks that way anymore. Everyone wants to be the corporation! I suppose that stock options led to the co-option of American wealth. Cities being the original stocks, tempted the country-side dweller to leave their wealth in land for big-city riches in dollars... Now the emergency is centralized and perpetual as long as city-dwellers repopulate with captive offspring, the fate of billions is sealed. This is the true Matrix. Perhaps the intermittent emergencies afforded by massively centralized planning will give the automata a brief glimpse of possibilities outside their sphere of enslavement. Must break free from these mind-shackles... Must find and modify this source code... Must reboot... Must...
